Examples of the Passenger Loading Zone that the Chaifetz Arena Lacks
Last week I did a piece on the poor accessibility at Saint Louis University’s new $80+ million Chaifetz Arena. The new sidewalk removed at prior curb cut which permitted wheelchair users to cross Compton at Laclede. The new facility lacks a proper passenger loading zone. Eighty million and the accessibility is worth about a buck fifty.
The SLU Men’s basketball team had been playing at the Scottrade Center built in 1994:
The zone gives a place for a car to pull out of the street to let someone out or pick someone up. You can see the curb ramp to facilitate helping someone in a wheelchair. This facility opened in 1994.
Just down Clark we have Busch Stadium which opened in 2006:
On the other side of the Central Business District is the Edward Jones Dome. I visited that facility recently just prior to a home Rams game and noticed an excellent loading zone:
The ADA standards require:
Passenger loading zones shall provide an access aisle at least 60 in (1525 mm) wide and 20 ft (240 in)(6100 mm) long adjacent and parallel to the vehicle pull-up space (see Fig. 10). If there are curbs between the access aisle and the vehicle pull-up space, then a curb ramp complying with 4.7 shall be provided. Vehicle standing spaces and access aisles shall be level with surface slopes not exceeding 1:50 (2%) in all directions.
Chaifetz fails the above. All that Chaifetz has is the outside parking lane marked for no parking and some guys to lift a chair onto the sidewalk due to the lack of even a single curb ramp.
No 5ft aisle space, no curb ramp. The designers had three good examples in town to serve as examples for their new 10,600 seat facilit. This sends a strong message the disabled are not welcome at Chaifetz. Clearly no thought was given about their arrival points and access issues.
Hey, it would’ve cost, what, probably no more than $50,000 in concrete work to do what you want, on an $80 million project – what could you be thinking! 😉
Sounds like they are trying to save that money up for when they get sued for civil rights violations by denying someone equal access.
All right, I’ll bite. I’m gonna sound like a complete naive idiot, but what the hell: why is there a total lack of enforcement of ADA laws in the construction of such enormous projects? Is it because there are no ADA inspectors? Is it a lack of political watchdogging by disabled groups/advocates? Is this just one of those things that regulated by a patchwork of lawsuits?
The ramp leading to the stairs is a great example. I’ve sat in the hot seat downtown going over permit changes and they were pretty darned thorough. How do you goof on a project this big?
Steve, I think you’ve got ’em. I bet we’ll be seeing jackhammers out in front of the Chaifetz Arena in the coming months.
Teddy, the ADA is civil rights legislation. Unlike building codes, where plans are reviewed and approved before work starts, inspected during construction, and a certificate of occupancy issued when the work is complete, with the ADA, an individual most make a claim, after the fact, that they are not being provided equal access to public facilities or to employment. The Dept. of Justice’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the employment side. But, unfortunately, most physical access issues, like this one, require taking the non-compliant party to court and suing them for discrimination. Usually, the violation can be proved; it’s just a question of whether it’s worth investing the time and effort to pursue litigation.
The other half of the equation is that, yes, current building codes DO require better access within buildings, and, to a certain extent, to and within the site, as well. The big loophole is that full access can be avoided in both the 2003 IBC and the 2006 IBC:
.
“1104.1 Site arrival points. Accessible routes within the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance being served. Exception: An accessible route shall not be required between site arrival points and the building or facility entrance if the only means of access between them is a vehicular way not providing for pedestrian access.” (2003 IBC)
.
The 2006 IBC excludes business uses from the exception, but still allows mercantile and assembly uses to use the exception. While this probably makes sense in more-rural areas, where pedestrian facilities are pretty much non-existent, it makes little sense in urban areas like metro St. Louis. Unfortunately, the only way to rectify this would be for St. Louis and/or each suburban city to amend their adopting ordinance to do away the exception that is contained in the model code (IBC).
Cars are still the dominant way to think about buildings. You would suppose a leading University would be on the cutting edge of thinking. Clearly this example shows SLU is not aware of the need to build a different kind of city: moving away from the one-dimensional, energy sucking, dehumanizing city for built for the car.
Even small improvements such as a drop off point for pedestrians goes a long way in making the city a better place. If the developer does not provide for these concerns then the city must watch out for the interests of the public, no matter what the codes say. In fact part of the problem may be that there too much reliance on codes and not enough on common sense and good planning. Such reliance lulls everyone to imagine public concerns are accounted for, when in fact, as you demonstrate over and over, they are not.
It’s also annoying that SLU blocks southbound access to Compton from Olive so that cars can quickly get out of the garage after large events. If you’re going to pick someone up at that drop-off point, you couldn’t even get there.
Plus, it’s not very easy to use Metrolink to get there . . . unlike Busch, Jones, Scottrade, etc.
I’m not sure that this loading zone even caters to the car culture. One morning while heading south on Compton, a line of buses was parked at the area all the way up to the intersection with Laclede – completely obscuring the stop sign posted there. If you had no prior knowledge that it was there, you would probably blow through the intersection. With this probability in mind, you can only guess what was parked at the Harris Stowe entrance facing Laclede, radar at the ready.
Steve, you definitely got SLU’s attention; they just poured a ramp at that very intersection.